“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Sunday, April 26, 2015

The USS George Washington, to waters offshore of Yemen was not specifically for the purpose of intercepting arms - More Lies from the Saudi and Israeli Lobby and their minions in the US Media about Iran

PORTER: That's possible that there's some people involved in training. But I think that that needs to be distinguished from two, two points. Or two questions. One, have the Iranians actually been providing arms to the Houthis, and particularly over the last seven or eight months since the Houthis entered Sana'a and took control? And secondly, are the Houthis actually following Iranian orders? Are they proxies of the Iranians in the sense that the Iranians are pulling the strings? And in my view the evidence now is very strong that both of those questions have to be answered with a negative.

AIPAC’s “No One Wants War” in Iran Claim Debunked

After Iran and world powers announced a framework agreement last week laying out guidelines for a final nuclear deal due by the end of June, opponents of a deal went immediately on the defensive. One group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was perhaps the most explicit. Their next-day “memo” reportedly circulated in temples over Passover, one of the many famous policy documents they release to activists framed opposition to the framework agreement as rebuttals to arguments in favor of it.

I’ll leave the parsing of all the talking points to someone else, except to note that some of them present straw-men arguments (no one, for instance, has made the “Iran Can Be Trusted Argument”) and some collapse under even basic comparisons to what the agreement entails (pushing back on the “Increased Access Argument” must be difficult, since the framework would clearly increase access for inspections).

One of the arguments, however, caught my eye. The talking point was presented this way:

Critics Want War Argument: Congressional critics, Israel, the pro-Israel movement, and the Sunni Arab neighbors of Iran all want war with Iran, not an agreement.Response: No one wants war. This argument is outrageous and meant to silence and delegitimize any critics of the deal. Each of these parties wants a diplomatic solution that truly guarantees Iran’s nuclear program can only be used for peaceful purposes. They all fear that an agreement based on the current framework’s parameters won’t meet that test and will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The problem with saying “no one wants war” is of course that some people do want war. These include some congressional critics, some Israeli officials, some in the pro-Israel movement and some of Iran’s Sunni Arab neighbors. None acts as a monolith, but their beautiful diversity definitely includes some warmongers.

AIPAC, moreover, surely knows this. Sheldon Adelson, a sometime AIPAC funder and partner who remains a major force in the “pro-Israel movement” has for example called for nuking Iran. The group’s stable of regular speakers at fundraisers and events includes several figures who have, indeed, called for war with Iran. Just consider a January AIPAC fundraiser in New York, headlined by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and former Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I/D-CT)—both of whom have at some point called for military strikes. As Lieberman once boasted, there is a “broad bipartisan base of support” for such an attack.

AIPAC can pretend “no one wants war,” but that’s just not true. One need only consult a long list of those associated with the lobby group itself to see that some do indeed “want war with Iran, not an agreement.” If they’re going to make fact-based arguments, AIPAC should stake out its opposition to its own associates, not deny the facts of their positions

153 comments:

Look at the links in this article and make no mistake, The Saudis, The Israelis and the Israeli minders of the GOP want the US to go to war with Iran. They will seize at any opportunity to do so. Not one Republican candidate for President is not owned by The Israeli firsters.

The Washington Post published a story so horrifying this weekend that it would stop your breath: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”Dahlia Lithwick Dahlia Lithwick

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate.

What went wrong? The Post continues: “Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.” The shameful, horrifying errors were uncovered in a massive, three-year review by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. Following revelations published in recent years, the two groups are helping the government with the country’s largest ever post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

Chillingly, as the Post continues, “the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.” Of these defendants, 14 have already been executed or died in prison.

“What we were finding was that the examiners … wouldn’t just simply say that there was a microscopic similarity [between the two hairs], but they would go beyond that and say it was a 100 percent match, essentially misleading the jury into concluding that the evidence had a certain value that it didn’t actually have,” Reimer said.

This problem doesn’t stop with the FBI labs or federal prosecutions. The review focuses on the first few hundred cases, involving FBI examiners, but the same mistakes and faulty testimony were likely presented in any state prosecutions that relied on the between 500 and 1,000 local or state examiners trained by the FBI. Some states will automatically conduct reviews. Others may not. Much of the evidence is now lost.

Iran has long supported Houthi rebels in Yemen with arms, training and financing.

Now, as a convoy of Iranian ships heads toward Yemen's Gulf of Aden, a U.S. carrier group is headed there as well to intercept any potential weapons transfers to the rebels, who have seized much of Yemen territory and are fighting the U.S.-backed government there, according to the Pentagon.

Iran's involvement in Yemen goes back years, and ranges from political and religious support for Houthi leaders to military training and active involvement in the fighting, according to media reports and Yemen analysts.

"There is a well-documented history of (Iranian) support for the Houthi, including in various State Department reports — money, weapons — support for a very long time," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters Monday...............

U.S. carrier moving off coast of Yemen to block Iranian arms shipments

Secretary of State John Kerry told PBS Newshour on April 8 that Iran had sent "a number of flights every single week" to Yemen with supplies for the Houthis. "Iran needs to recognize that the U.S. is not going to stand by while the region is destabilized or while people engage in overt warfare across lines, international boundaries and other countries," he said..................

Firthing is the act of hanging around the object of your affections looking intense but never actually telling them how you feel. The term is named for Colin Firth who played Mr. Darcy in a film adaption of Pride and Prejudice and spent a lot of time "firthing." http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Firthing

Reuters) - Air raids, naval shelling and ground fighting shook Yemen on Sunday in some of the most widespread combat since a Saudi-led alliance intervened last month against Iranian-allied Houthi militia who have seized wide areas of the country.

There were at least five air strikes on military positions and an area near the presidential palace compound in the Houthi-held capital Sanaa at dawn on Sunday, while warships pounded an area near the port of the southern city of Aden, residents said.

"The explosions were so big they shook the house, waking us and our kids up. Life has really become unbearable in this city," a Sanaa resident who gave his name as Jamal told Reuters.

The strikes on Sanaa were the first since the Saudi-led coalition said last week it was scaling back a campaign against the Houthis. But the air raids soon resumed as the Houthis' nationwide gains had not been notably rolled back, and there has been no visible progress toward peace talks.

Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter and arch Sunni Muslim regional adversary of Shi'ite Muslim Iran, feels menaced by the Shi'ite Houthi advance across Yemen since last September, when the rebels captured the capital.

The Houthis later forced President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi into exile. The Saudi-led intervention aims to restore Hadi and prevent Yemen disintegrating as a state, with al Qaeda militants thriving in the chaos and one of the world's busiest oil shipping lanes off the Yemeni coast at risk.

Published : 2015-04-26 18:11Updated : 2015-04-26 18:11The nuclear framework agreement between Iran and the five permanent U.N. Security Council members (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) plus Germany is an important achievement in global diplomacy.

The deal announced earlier this month represents the triumph of rational hope over irrational fear, and it deserves to be implemented. But now the race is on against hard-liners in the U.S., Iran, Israel and elsewhere, who want to kill the deal before the deadline for a final agreement in June.

The framework agreement benefits all parties. Iran scales back its nuclear activities, especially the enrichment of uranium fuel, in exchange for an end to economic sanctions. Its government is kept further away from developing a nuclear bomb ― which it denies pursuing ― and gains room for economic recovery and normalization of relations with the major powers.

It is a smart, pragmatic and balanced approach, subject to monitoring and verification. It does not require that the U.S. and Iranian governments suddenly trust each other; but it does offer an opportunity to build confidence, even as it allows for specific steps that are in each side’s interests. Crucially, it is part of international law, within the framework of the U.N. Security Council.

By propounding the idea that the other side can never be trusted, the hard-liners are advancing a self-fulfilling theory of politics and human nature that makes war far more likely. These purveyors of fear deserve to be kept on the sidelines. It is time to make peace.

The great divide between the West and Iran today, it should be noted, is largely the result of malign Western behavior toward Iran (Persia until 1935) in the past. From the start of the 20th century, the British Empire manipulated Persia in order to control its vast oil reserves. After World War II, that job fell increasingly to the U.S.

Indeed, from coup to dictatorship to war to sanctions, the U.S. has racked up more than 60 continuous years of trying to impose its will on Iran.

The CIA and Britain’s MI6 jointly toppled Mohammad Mossadegh’s democratically elected government in 1953, in order to block Mossadegh’s attempts to nationalize Iran’s oil reserves. The U.S. then installed the brutal dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which ruled the country until the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Following the revolution, the U.S. helped to arm Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, in which an estimated 1 million Iranians died. Since 1987, the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions against Iran on a variety of premises, including claims of Iranian terrorism and the alleged nuclear threat. And the U.S. has worked hard to internationalize these sanctions, leading the push for U.N. measures, which have been in place since 2006.

The U.S. hard-liners have their own long list of grievances, starting with the 1979 seizure of America’s embassy in Tehran, in which 66 U.S. diplomats and citizens were held for 444 days. Then there is Iran’s involvement in Islamist insurgencies, and its support for anti-Israel political movements and groups deemed to be terrorist.

Still, the British and American abuses vis-a-vis Persia and Iran started earlier, lasted longer and imposed far higher costs than Iran’s actions vis-a-vis the U.S. and U.K. Moreover, much of what the U.S. categories as Iranian “terror” is a product of the region’s sectarian struggles between Shia, backed by Iran, and Sunnis, backed by Saudi Arabia. “Terror” is a term that obscures rather than clarifies these long-standing clashes and rivalries. That is why Iran, called a “terrorist state” by U.S. hard-liners, is now America’s de facto ally in the fight against Sunni jihadists in Iraq and Syria.

Iran’s confrontation with the U.K. and the U.S. is part of the much broader saga of the West’s use of its military and economic dominance to project its power and political will over much of the world during the 19th and 20th centuries. Today’s low- and middle-income countries are only now entering a period of true sovereignty.

The proposed agreement with Iran will not overcome a century of distrust and manipulation, but it can begin to create a new path toward peace and mutual respect. Mutual benefit will be achieved by honest appraisals of mutual interests, and step-by-step progress backed by verification, not by hard-liners on both sides claiming that the other side is pure evil and insisting on complete triumph.

The success of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in reaching the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, at the height of the Cold War, provides an instructive lesson.

At the time, hard-liners on both sides denounced the LTBT as a weakening of national defense in the face of an implacable enemy. In fact, both sides fully honored the treaty, and it led to the landmark 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

JFK’s words a half-century ago apply to the Iran agreement today. The LTBT, said Kennedy in 1963, “is not a victory for one side ― it is a victory for mankind.” This treaty, he said, “will not resolve all conflicts, or cause the Communists to forgo their ambitions, or eliminate the dangers of war. It will not reduce our need for arms or allies or programs of assistance to others. But it is an important first step ― a step toward peace ― a step towards reason ― a step away from war.”

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of sustainable development, professor of health policy and management, and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. ― Ed.

ISRAEL: * Military Conflicts initiated by Israel: 30+ * Number of Active Nuclear War Heads: 300+ * Number of Nuclear Deterrents: 400+ * Potential Nuclear Deterrent Manufacturing Capability: 1000+ * Inspection Access to Nuclear Facilities by UN Weapons Inspectors: NO * Signed up to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: NO * Ratification of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: NO * International Transparency on Nuclear matters: NO

Which of these claims is false?

IRAN * Military Conflicts initiated by Iran: 0 * Number of Active Nuclear War Heads: 0 * Number of Nuclear Deterrents: 0 * Potential Nuclear Deterrent Manufacturing Capability: 0 * Inspection Access to Nuclear Facilities by UN Weapons Inspectors: YES * Signed up to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: YES * Ratification of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: YES * International Transparency on Nuclear matters: YES

By ending sanctions and releasing BILLIONS of frozen assets and additionally taking the pressure off of Iran to make any concessions, couple that with Obama giving Iran the green light to allow Iran to take over nation after nation?

Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson knows that the cause of his aunt being institutionalize was not a coincidence.He needed to avoid going to jail, after stealing her identity and defrauding the bank using her credit card.

$7,500 USD, a felonious sum of money.... I put her in the rest home, age 96. What you going to do, when she is institutionalized?

Hmmm, I guess I should just go by the speculation, assumptions, and rumors you dolts indulge in. Don't ask embarrassing questions.

As WiO put it yesterday, ignore the fact that it is Saudi Arabia that is illegally bombing Yemen and terrorizing its citizens, the war in Yemen is the result of Iran trying to extend its hegemony.

Ignore the fact that there has been numerous reports of Iran supplying arms to the Houthi yet there has been no actual evidence presented of it, certainly not within the last six months or so, the period of Houthi ascendancy.

Don't question why the Houthi would need arms from Iran when like ISIS they have been looting government arms depots and military installations during their assault on the government.

Don't question media reports that Iran has sent a fleet of ships carrying weapons to Iran even though to date there has been no proof of it and Iran denies it.

Don't question media reports that the US sent an aircraft carrier to the region to stop the arms flow even when the US says that the real reason they sent it was to reassure Saudi Arabia of American commitment in the region.

Ignore the fact that, at least to date, there has been zip in the way of proof that Iran is providing any significant military support to the Houthi in their fight in Yemen.

Assume that in Syria the militants were justified in demanding accountability from the central government but in Yemen they are not.

Assume that the Syrian conflict was the result was Iran's fault while in Yemen the conflict was Iran's fault.

Ignore the role of all other players in the ME and blame all the turmoil there on Iran.

Reason #11 for why the US should stay out of the ME, nitwit English majors from Idaho.

Or are you ISraeli Firsters just going to ignore the global implications of the rest of the world abandoning US, and embracing the BRIC basket of currencies when the US acts irrationally with regards to Iran?

An acronym for the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. The general consensus is that the term was first prominently used in a Goldman Sachs report from 2003, which speculated that by 2050 these four economies would be wealthier than most of the current major economic powers.INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Brazil, Russia, India And China - BRIC'

The BRIC thesis posits that China and India will become the world's dominant suppliers of manufactured goods and services, respectively, while Brazil and Russia will become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials. It's important to note that the Goldman Sachs thesis isn't that these countries are a political alliance (like the European Union) or a formal trading association - but they have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc. BRIC is now also used as a more generic marketing term to refer to these four emerging economies.

BRICS establish $100bn bank and currency pool to cut out Western dominance

The group of emerging economies signed the long-anticipated document to create the $100 bn BRICS Development Bank and a reserve currency pool worth over another $100 bn. Both will counter the influence of Western-based lending institutions and the dollar.

The new bank will provide money for infrastructure and development projects in BRICS countries, and unlike the IMF or World Bank, each nation has equal say, regardless of GDP size.

Each BRICS member is expected to put an equal share into establishing the startup capital of $50 billion with a goal to reach $100 billion. The BRICS bank will be headquartered in Shanghai, India will preside as president the first year, and Russia will be the chairman of the representatives.

“BRICS Bank will be one of the major multilateral development finance institutions in this world,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday at the 6th BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil.

The big launch of the BRICS bank is seen as a first step to break the dominance of the US dollar in global trade, as well as dollar-backed institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both US-based institutions BRICS countries have little influence within.

It is supposed to demoralize Muslims worldwide? Ridiculous. The stone has been stolen before with little ill effect. And ask yourself the question: If the Western Wall were destroyed with explosives, would it demoralize the Jews or would it just piss them off?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces targeted Islamic State militants in Syria with seven air strikes from Friday to Saturday morning and conducted 16 strikes against the group in Iraq, the U.S. military said.

Four of the strikes in Syria hit targets near Kobani, destroying two Islamic State boats, and three strikes hit near Al Hasakah, according to a military statement on Sunday.

In Iraq, four strikes near Fallujah hit Islamic State tactical units, destroying four vehicles and a heavy machine gun. Seven strikes near Bayji struck four Islamic State tactical units and a staging area. Coalition forces also struck targets near Ramadi, Sinjar, Kirkuk and Mosul, the statement said.

Iraqi security forces and tribal fighters regain control of the northern neighborhoods, after overnight heavy clashes with Islamic State group militants, in Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, Iraq, on Thursday. (AP)

Agencies

Published — Saturday 25 April 2015

Last update 25 April 2015 1:27 am

BAGHDAD: Iraqi security forces recaptured a key bridge from Islamic State militants in the capital of Anbar province on Friday, said an Iraqi security official, as the country’s top Shiite cleric renewed calls for national unity among political rivals in the face of the Islamic militant threat.Police colonel Mahdi Abbas said Iraqi security forces recaptured the Al-Houz bridge over the Euphrates river after fierce clashes with IS militants in western Ramadi.Abbas said that the bridge was controlled by the IS group for several months and served as a primary supply route for the insurgents.The security situation in Ramadi sharply deteriorated after the IS group seized three villages around the city, forcing thousands to flee their homes. In recent days Iraqi soldiers and police have been able to secure the center of Ramadi and push the militants back from some areas of the city.....

No, that bridge is not 'in Ramadi', learn to read "Draft Dodger"It is west of Ramadi and has been held by Daesh since the summer.The fact that the government has taken it, prove positive that Ramadi is cleared.The fact that the people are moving back to Ramadi, another indicator the city has been cleared of Daesh.

Get a clue, "Chattel Boy".I still own Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, the only truth he has written in quite a while.

Being the Logical Mind he is, and a quick study too, he should be able to read and to weigh and judge the conflicting opinions and evidence and come to some conclusion by the 4th of July, 2015, the date Iraq is to be ISIS free according to Rufus.

The question is irrelevant to the issue. We are talking Yemen. To date, I have seen no proof of Iran providing anything but verbal support to the Houthi. What would be the point? The Houthi have all the arms they needs. They took over have of the government's arms depots and military installations.

All I have seen is numerous articles with words like 'support', 'may have', 'speculated', 'assumed', 'reported', and all of them from Western or Sunni sources. Of course, Iran and the Houthi deny it.

You guys believe anything that comes out in your daily talking points memo from AIPAC or what you can gather from Hannity on Fox or Rick Moron at AM.

The sale of weapons to a government committing genocide is like the sale of weapons to Nazi Germany during World War II.By Yair Auron | Oct. 26, 2014 | 1:16 AM | 26

In light of the increased manifestations of hatred in Azerbaijan against the Armenians, Azerbaijan’s increasing military strength and the rise in internal tensions there, it is feared that if war breaks out again between Azerbaijan and the Armenians in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, there will be massacres against the Armenian population in that contested region.

And yet, despite the handwriting on the wall, last month Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon flew to Azerbaijan to meet with the heads of its military and state, including the president.

As far as the Armenians are concerned, the conflict with the Azeris is a fight for survival, a fight for their right to live in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Next year will mark 100 years since the genocide against the Armenian people. An Azeri assault, if one takes place, could be a sorrowful reminder of the events of those days.

But perhaps it is not too late to prevent escalation. Israel has a moral obligation in this matter, beyond its international obligations. It would be very serious if it turned out that Azerbaijan’s security forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity using Israeli weapons.

During my visit to Armenia last May, to receive a prize from the Armenian president, I was told about the tension in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is mostly populated by Armenians (as a result of the imperialist policies of the Soviet Union).

This tension is the result of the six-year war in the region between the Armenian inhabitants and Azerbaijan, during which some 30,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands were forced to leave their homes.

The Armenians, who were fighting for their homes, were able to overcome the Azeri army, which was much stronger than they were, and were able to maintain control of the region. In 1994, a fragile, Russian-brokered cease-fire was arranged.

According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state.

The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-of-slaves-in-israel-global-study-finds/#ixzz3GCi99Rck

Iraqi security forces have recaptured areas lost earlier to the Islamic State group in and around the western city of Ramadi in the volatile Anbar province, security officials said Tuesday.

Police Maj. Omar al-Alawani said government forces regained control of the city's Pediatric and Maternity Hospital and the surrounding neighborhood late Monday night after fierce clashes with IS militants. The hospital is located about 500 meters (yards) from a complex of government offices.

On Tuesday, Iraqi troops were engaged in intense clashes in an offensive to regain control of Soufiya, one of three villages that fell into the hands of the Islamic State group last week, said police Col. Mahdi Abbas.

Both officials said the battles turned in favor of government forces after the arrival of reinforcements and weapons from Baghdad. At least 12 militants were killed in the clashes overnight, they said.

Footage obtained by The Associated Press showed military black Humvees advancing in a residential area in Ramadi and Iraqi soldiers firing their rifles while taking shelter behind a wall.

The security situation in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, sharply deteriorated after IS seized Soufiya and the two other villages, Sjariyah and Albu-Ghanim, forcing thousands of civilians to flee their homes.............

****See the smoke rise from the Haouz neighborhood during clashes with Islamic State group militants, in central Ramadi, 70 miles (115 kilometers) west of Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, April 20, 2015. (AP Photo)APAssociated Press

You cannot even provide the evidence needed to win the betYou wouldn't pay your debts, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

bob Thu May 27, 12:52:00 AM EDTBut I did rip off the bank for $7500 hundred dollars, when I was on my knees, and fighting for my economic life, on my aunt's credit card. But that wasn't really stealing, just payback. …

I believe in physics, science, engineering and Darwin. Israel in the long run has no long run. It has disproportionate risk on the down side and no tangible upside for real US interests. It is a political anachronism, a nuclear armed pimple on the big ass theater of the religious absurd.

American politicians, in the pocket of an insignificant but dangerous political entity with no future, makes no sense to me. The Republicans, disgust me even though the Democrats biggest asset is that they are not Republicans.

Others of us believe in goodness, nobility, art, literature, poetry, fighting against the odds, love, human rights, the idea that our rights come from God not man, and the Other World, among other things worth mentioning, including humor.

There is no humor in Islam, an Iranian mullah once told us all. No joy in Islam.

Deuce ☂Sun Apr 26, 06:20:00 PM EDTI believe in physics, science, engineering and Darwin. Israel in the long run has no long run. It has disproportionate risk on the down side and no tangible upside for real US interests. It is a political anachronism, a nuclear armed pimple on the big ass theater of the religious absurd.

American politicians, in the pocket of an insignificant but dangerous political entity with no future, makes no sense to me. The Republicans, disgust me even though the Democrats biggest asset is that they are not Republicans.

Deuce, thanks for your words of encouragement. From your words Israel should just off its'self now and save the world the trouble.

Better for the Jews and Israel to listen to your opinion of them, which is shared by Iran and it's Mullahs, Hamas and other radical jihadists and nazis. But the bad news for you Deuce?

Israel is not going anywhere.

It will continue to grow, innovate and prosper.

Now the flip side?

The collective enemies of Israel are self imploding...

Just stay tuned Deuce as your heroes, those that advocate the reopening of the gas chambers for the Jews, suffer the things they advocated for Jews and Israel.

Already you can see how the suicide bombers that historically been trained, funded and supported in one islamic nazi nation after another that were unleashed onto the Jews and Israel are now turning inward...

Not a DAY goes by that 20-50 moslems at a time in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (and others) blow up...

So you keep rooting for Israel and the Jews demise and I'll keep supporting Israel and the USA relationship...

The question is irrelevant to the issue. We are talking Yemen. To date, I have seen no proof of Iran providing anything but verbal support to the Houthi. What would be the point? The Houthi have all the arms they needs. They took over have of the government's arms depots and military installations.

All I have seen is numerous articles with words like 'support', 'may have', 'speculated', 'assumed', 'reported', and all of them from Western or Sunni sources. Of course, Iran and the Houthi deny it.

You guys believe anything that comes out in your daily talking points memo from AIPAC or what you can gather from Hannity on Fox or Rick Moron at AM.

Rather than insult us Quirk, try opening your mind to see the entire region...

Iran has supplied weapons, money and training to the Shi'ite Houthi militia that seized Yemen's capital in September, as Tehran steps up its regional power struggle with Saudi Arabia, Yemeni and Iranian officials say.

Exactly how much support Iran has given the Houthis, who share a Shi'ite ideology, has never been clear. Sunni countries in the Gulf accuse Iran of interference via Shi'ite proxies in the region, something Tehran denies.

But Reuters has details -- from Yemeni, Western and Iranian sources -- of Iranian military and financial support to the Houthis before and after their takeover of Sanaa on Sept. 21.

A senior Houthi official denied there had been material and financial support. But the assertions are still likely to reinforce Saudi, and Western, fears that Iran is exploiting turmoil between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and now Yemen.

Riyadh has suspended aid to Yemen, angered by the Houthis' growing power, while Iran publicly welcomed the Houthi victory.

A senior Yemeni security official said Iran had steadily supported the Houthis, who have fought the central government since 2004 from their northern stronghold of Saadah.

"Before the entrance into Sanaa, Iran started sending weapons here and gave a lot of support with money via visits abroad," the official, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, told Reuters.

A second senior Yemeni security official said "weapons are still coming in by sea and there's money coming in through transfers".

SWIFT VICTORY

Iran, the first official said, saw victory would be swift in Yemen, unlike in Iraq and Syria, and "with not too much expense".

A Western source familiar with Yemen also said the Houthis had been getting training and money.

"It's been happening for over a year. We've seen Houthis going out to Iran and Lebanon for military training."

"We think there is cash, some of which is channeled via Hezbollah and sacks of cash arriving at the airport. The numbers of those going for training are enough for us to worry about,” the source said. The first Yemeni security official said Houthi fighters had received training by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that the Quds Force, the external arm of the Revolutionary Guard, had a "few hundred" military personnel in Yemen who train Houthi fighters.

He said about 100 Houthis had traveled to Iran this year for training at a Revolutionary Guards base near the city of Qom. It was not immediately possible to verify this claim.

The official said there were a dozen Iranian military advisers in Yemen, and the pace of money and arms getting to the Houthis had increased since their seizure of Sanaa.

"Everything is about the balance of power in the region. Iran wants a powerful Shi'ite presence in the region that is why it has got involved in Yemen as well," said the Iranian official.

Salah al-Sammad, a senior Houthi adviser to the Yemeni president, denied Iran had provided arms but said Iranian backing was part of a shared vision in "confronting the American project".

For its part, Saudi Arabia provided "blatant" support to allied tribal sheikhs and parties in Yemen, he said.

SHIP SEIZED

Yemeni authorities point to the "Jihan 1" as evidence of Iran's support. The ship was seized by Yemen in 2013, smuggling weapons from Iran to local insurgents.

The Yemeni official showed Reuters a breakdown of the cargo, which included Katyusha rockets M-122, heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles, RPG-7s, Iranian-made night vision goggles and "artillery systems that track land and navy targets 40km away".

There were also silencers, 2.66 tonnes of RDX explosives, C-4 explosives, ammunition, bullets and electrical transistors.

A few days after the Sanaa takeover, Houthi gunmen surrounded the National Security headquarters calling for the release from jail of eight Yemeni crew members.

They were freed, as were two suspected Hezbollah members jailed for planning to provide military training to the Houthis.

Iran denied any connection with the arms found on Jihan 1.

Sanaa residents still can't understand how the Houthis managed to take control of their city.

Although the Houthis started as a small movement in north Yemen, they gained strength by tapping into the grievances of Zaydi Shi'ites, about a third of Yemen's population.

Their march to Sanaa was led by fighters who exploited popular discontent over corruption and the removal of fuel subsidies. They also exploited divisions within the army, which largely melted away at the decisive moment.

"Most of the fighting is done by local people supported by people from the Houthis," a Houthi fighter told Reuters.

With the Houthis now in control of the capital, the airport and most of the port of Hodeidah, there are fears of more overt support from Tehran.

Iranian official? Iranian government official? Abdul, official leader of the camel dung union? Baba, official greeter at the Tehran Walmart?

Exactly how much support Iran has given the Houthis, who share a Shi'ite ideology, has never been clear.

Sunni countries in the Gulf accuse Iran... Really, Sunni countries?

But Reuters has details -- from Yemeni, Western and Iranian sources -- of Iranian military and financial support to the Houthis before and after their takeover of Sanaa on Sept. 21. What are those details?

A senior Houthi official denied there had been material and financial support. But the assertions are still likely to reinforce Saudi, and Western, fears...

A senior Yemeni security official said... Well, gosh...

A second senior Yemeni security official said... Golly...

Iran, the first official said...

A Western source familiar with Yemen also said...

"We think there is cash,...the source said...,

A senior Iranian official told Reuters... It was not immediately possible to verify this claim.

Lord, Obumble, you are a dolt.

.

Salah al-Sammad, a senior Houthi adviser to the Yemeni president, denied Iran had provided arms but said Iranian backing was part of a shared vision in "confronting the American project".

The one concrete allegation that has been invoked by media stories in recent months is the case of a ship called Jihan 1, said to have been laden with Iranian arms, that was intercepted in early 2013. A Reuters story last December cited a list a list of all the items on board provided by a "senior Yemeni security official," which included Katyusha rifles, RPGs-7s, tons of RDX explosives and surface-to-air missiles.

Jihan 1 - murky claims

But the Hadi government never provided any evidence that the ship was sent by Iran or was intended for the Houthis. And most of the items mentioned were not even Iranian-manufactured weapons. The one odd exception was a reference to "Iranian-made night vision goggles". That fact suggests that the ship was intended to provide arms to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which carries out large numbers of terrorist bombings and would have needed the large supplies of RDX. The Houthis, on the other hand, are not known to have used that explosive. The UN expert panel formed to support the UN Security Council sanctions against Houthi commanders and Saleh reported that it had been "unable to independently confirm the allegation" about the Jihan 1.

Kit Carson’s campaign against the IndiansOn this day, the Union’s Lt. Colonel Christopher “Kit” Carson leaves Santa Fe with his troops, beginning his campaign against the Indians of New Mexico and Arizona.

A famed mountain man before the Civil War, Carson was responsible for waging a destructive war against the Navajo that resulted in their removal from the Four Corners area to southeastern New Mexico.

Carson was perhaps the most famous trapper and guide in the West. He traveled with the expeditions of John C. Fremont in the 1840s, leading Fremont through the Great Basin. Fremont’s flattering portrayal of Carson made the mountain man a hero when the reports were published and widely read in the east. Later, Carson guided Stephen Watts Kearney to New Mexico during the Mexican-American War. In the 1850s he became the Indian agent for New Mexico, a position he left in 1861 to accept a commission as lieutenant colonel in the 1st New Mexico Volunteers.

Although Carson’s unit saw action in the New Mexico battles of 1862, he was most famous for his campaign against the Indians. Despite his reputation for being sympathetic and accommodating to tribes such as the Mescaleros, Kiowas, and Navajo, Carson waged a brutal campaign against the Navajo in 1863. When bands of Navajo refused to accept confinement on reservations, Carson terrorized the Navajo lands–burning crops, destroying villages, and slaughtering livestock. Carson rounded up some 8,000 Navajo and marched them across New Mexico for imprisonment on the Bosque Redondo Reservation, over 300 miles from their homes, where they remained for the duration of the war.

...Although Carson’s unit saw action in the New Mexico battles of 1862, he was most famous for his campaign against the Indians. Despite his reputation for being sympathetic and accommodating to tribes such as the Mescaleros, Kiowas, and Navajo, Carson waged a brutal campaign against the Navajo in 1863. When bands of Navajo refused to accept confinement on reservations, Carson terrorized the Navajo lands–burning crops, destroying villages, and slaughtering livestock. Carson rounded up some 8,000 Navajo and marched them across New Mexico for imprisonment on the Bosque Redondo Reservation, over 300 miles from their homes, where they remained for the duration of the war.

Yup, Colin Powell is a black piece of shit. Why ? Cause he voted race. After forever as a Republican, he turned racist, and voted race. I used to like the guy. Would have voted for him. But in our country one is not supposed to vote race.

Hillary is a white piece of shit. Why ? Corrupt beyond belief.

Jack "Dead Beat Dad" Hawkins is just an everyday ordinary piece of shit.

In a closed-door meeting with Jewish Donors Saturday night, former President George W. Bush delivered his harshest public criticisms to date against his successor on foreign policy, saying that President Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against the Islamic State.

One attendee at the Republican Jewish Coalition session, held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with owner Sheldon Adelson in attendance, transcribed large portions of Bush’s remarks. The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked that the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he didn’t want to do. He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in "retreat" around the world. He also said Obama was misreading Iran’s intentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily.

According to the attendee's transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He's smooth," Bush said. "And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops, but the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.